Stealth advocacy in ecology and conservation biology

Ecologists routinely engage directly or indirectly with policy. Long portrayed as a tradeoff between a scientist's societal impact and their credibility, the decision to advocate for specific policies is now widely treated as a matter of personal choice. However, increasing polarization at the science-policy interface has led to a re-examination of the potential pitfalls associated with different policy contexts. We analyze two major biodiversity-related policy issues (non-native species, species at risk) using an existing science-policy framework where policy context is defined by the level of uncertainty and the level of value consensus in society. We argue that ecologists and conservation biologists often find themselves operating in contexts where uncertainty is high and/or value consensus is low. In these conditions, even a common set of facts can generate several legitimate policy alternatives: scientists have the choice to act as issue advocates (narrowing the range of options), or honest brokers (expanding policy options). However, there is also a high risk that scientists might communicate their own policy preferences in a way that is indistinguishable from scientific results: so-called "stealth advocacy". Conflating value-driven positions and scientific advice is not only counterproductive for science, it also hinders the resolution of the environmental challenges we are trying to address, potentially leading to more polarized debates. With four possible roles for scientists at the science-policy interface - pure scientist, science advisor, issue advocate, and honest broker - close attention to their own values and those of others can help scientists more effectively navigate their interactions with broader society.